syariah court for criminal activities?

anwar turns to syariah court – so said the headline in malaysiakini yesterday. is this good or bad? what made anwar came to this decision? was it because of the call from putera umno president challenging him to swear on the quran?

"I have sought the advice of ulama and they told me that it is unnecessary to swear on the Quran to prove my innocence,” said Anwar, stressing his decision not to respond to the call.

“They have also strongly advised me against doing so as it will transgress Islamic rules. This is a criminal act and it must be investigated. There’s nothing in Islamic law that allows you to take an oath under this provision.

“If it is a criminal offence, the burden of proof is with the accuser. Otherwise you could be involved in a murder and you (could) swear on the Quran and you would get off scot-free.”

i also remember, i think, from a letter in malaysiakini, that to swear on the quran will be meaningless for a non god-fearing person. true. no point using your religion/faith to ‘escape’ something if you are not a devout or committed person to your faith. i remember too how when i was a child, my parents used to tell me "do not swear", "swearing is no good", "swear only at the very last resort". this had taught me not to take swearing lightly!

ok coming back to anwar bringing his sodomy case to the syariah court, where i had asked ‘is this good or bad?".  well… good in a way for anwar that the syriah court stated one need to produce 4 witnesses… and of course usually in sodomy or rape cases, it’s quite impossible to produce 4 witnesses.

bad? well it may set a precedent for others to do what anwar did. all criminal matters might be refered to syariah court, and especially for genuine rape cases, what if the victim can’t produce 4 witnesses?

continuing the report from malaysiakini:

Anwar explained that only the Syariah Court can decide whether or not he has to swear on the Quran to prove his innocence and that this was not for Putera Umno to demand.

Kamar Ainah (photo, far left) said it is the duty of the accuser to swear on the Quran.

“In Islam, a man is presumed innocent until he is proven guilty and whoever made the accusation must present the evidence – swearing or taking an oath is a form of evidence,” she said.

“Therefore it is not the duty of the accused to take oath and prove his innocence. It is the accuser who has to do this.”

so now it looks like saiful is in a fix? he’s the one who is suppose to swear on the quran?

Anwar claimed that his opponents are using religious laws as part of their strategy to go on the offensive.

well i guess it is "two can play at that game" with anwar. that putera umno president started it… mentioning religious laws (well not really but to swear on the quran… something to do with religion), so he too had to resort to religious laws – the syariah court.

hmm…. interesting indeed. let’s see what further drama will unfold.

for the benefit of those who do not subsribe to malaysiakini (what are you waiting for? you should! good read there and you’ll be supporting malaysiakini), here is the full article:

—————————————————–

Sodomy: Anwar turns to Syariah Court
Syed Jaymal Zahid
Jul 9, 08 12:27pm

PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim today turned to the Syariah court to clear his name over the sodomy allegation against him by his former aide Saiful Bukhari Azlan.

Anwar, who was accompanied by his wife and PKR president Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, filed a complaint against Saiful with the Federal Territories Islamic Affairs Department.

His lawyers Kamar Ainiah Kamaruzaman and Ahmad Shabrimi Mohamed submitted the complaint this morning to Mohd Ajib, director of the syariah enforcement department. 
“On the advice of ulama (Islamic scholars) and my lawyers, I have filed a complaint with the enforcement department of the Syariah Court to have them clear me and my family’s name of the malicious allegation,” Anwar told reporters.

"This slander is a major issue because it involves a sexual crime and the attempt is of course to mislead the Muslim population, to attack me and my character."

The complaint, referred to as qazaf in Islamic law, is to request a probe into ‘false allegations’ pertaining to adultery or sexual misconduct.

Kamar Ainah said qazaf is an offence under section 41 of the Syariah Criminal Offences Act 1997. It covers false allegations of zina (adultery, pre-marital sex or any sexual conduct viewed as illegal in Islam).

Under syariah laws, Saiful will be required to produce four credible witnesses to back up his claims, lawyers said.

If he fails to do so, he can be declared a fasid or unreliable person, and faces three years imprisonment, or a fine up to RM5,000, for bearing false witness.

“I am glad that the enforcement department has promised to take prompt action on the complaint and we hope the investigations will be concluded as soon as possible,” she noted.

Anwar clarified that the complaint has nothing to do with the civil suit he has filed against Saiful, as the current move is a means to clear his name under the Islamic law.

He also said this was a response to various parties who have invoked Islamic principles in demanding that he proves his innocence.

Putera Umno president Azeez Abdul Rahim had challenged Anwar last Friday to swear on the Quran.

"I have sought the advice of ulama and they told me that it is unnecessary to swear on the Quran to prove my innocence,” said Anwar, stressing his decision not to respond to the call.

“They have also strongly advised me against doing so as it will transgress Islamic rules. This is a criminal act and it must be investigated. There’s nothing in Islamic law that allows you to take an oath under this provision.

“If it is a criminal offence, the burden of proof is with the accuser. Otherwise you could be involved in a murder and you (could) swear on the Quran and you would get off scot-free.”

‘Burden of proof on Saiful’

Anwar explained that only the Syariah Court can decide whether or not he has to swear on the Quran to prove his innocence and that this was not for Putera Umno to demand.

Kamar Ainah (photo, far left) said it is the duty of the accuser to swear on the Quran.

“In Islam, a man is presumed innocent until he is proven guilty and whoever made the accusation must present the evidence – swearing or taking an oath is a form of evidence,” she said.

“Therefore it is not the duty of the accused to take oath and prove his innocence. It is the accuser who has to do this.”

Anwar claimed that his opponents are using religious laws as part of their strategy to go on the offensive.

“We saw the same modus operandi being used by the same players (attorney-general Abdul Ghani Patail and inspector-general of police Musa Hassan) 10 years ago,” said Anwar.

Accuser Saiful, 23, has been under police protection since accusing Anwar of sodomising him – the same charge that saw the opposition leader jailed a decade ago.

Anwar was sacked from all his government and Umno posts in 1998 following a fallout with premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad and was then charged separately with corrupt practice and sodomy.

He served out a six-year sentence on the corruption charge, but won his appeal in 2004 against the conviction and sentence on the sodomy charge.